A Nuclear Strike on Iran Would Poison the Region It Claims to Protect

On the day Americans vote in the midterms, what Washington does about Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain is no longer an abstract question. Tucker Carlson claims the Trump administration may be days from a nuclear strike on the site. The White House says he “has no insight into military planning”, and Iran denies any nuclear activity there. The claim is unverified. But the debate shows how close the world is to treating the unthinkable as an option.

What is actually on the table

Carlson alleges Israeli pressure and says only an atomic weapon can reach tunnels under roughly 300 feet of granite. President Trump has said the U.S. might have to go after Pickaxe if there is no deal. But he has not said how. Axios reports he is pursuing diplomacy, and Secretary of State Rubio said no decision has been made. Trump has also ruled out nuclear use. [Confirm the date and outlet.] The administration is reportedly divided between those who favor a deal and those who favor sustained pressure.

The technical case is thinner than claimed

CBS reported that Washington has prepared plans to use a massive conventional bomb against sites including Pickaxe. Conventional success is not guaranteed, but sealing entrances, repeated strikes and sabotage are options short of a nuclear detonation. Nuclear earth-penetrators cannot bury deep enough to contain fallout [add link to the 2005 National Academies study]. A “clean” nuclear option does not exist.

It would not even solve the problem

The strongest argument against a nuclear strike is that it would not end Iran’s program. The IAEA chief, Rafael Grossi, has said the war cannot eliminate it. He expects material and enrichment capacity to remain even after heavy damage.

Nuclear force would not change that, because knowledge, material and dispersed sites cannot be bombed away.

It would make things worse. After earlier strikes, Iran suspended cooperation with the IAEA and has threatened to leave the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Arms-control experts warn that further strikes could push Tehran toward NPT withdrawal and weaponization. If the world’s most powerful nuclear state used nuclear weapons against a country that has not built them, Tehran’s hardliners would have their argument. Only a bomb deters a bomb.

The legal and moral line

Using a nuclear weapon on a non-nuclear state would break a longstanding norm of the nuclear order. Non-nuclear NPT members have long relied on the principle that nuclear powers will not use such weapons against them [add source: U.S. negative security assurances].

The International Court of Justice’s 1996 advisory opinion found that the use of nuclear weapons would generally violate international humanitarian law [add source]. Both rest on the same idea: some weapons are too indiscriminate to be lawful.

Why the region pays first

Any nuclear detonation near Natanz would kill civilians through blast and local fallout, and radioactive contamination would spread unpredictably with the wind, putting Iran’s neighbors at risk. Gulf states depend on desalination, and Carlson himself warns that Gulf contamination could threaten drinking water for roughly 100 million people. Iran’s own population, Afghanistan, Pakistan’s western provinces and a refugee crisis would follow.

For Pakistan, the stakes are close to home. We live in a region where nuclear-armed neighbors have managed their rivalries partly because the nuclear taboo has held since 1945. A first use against a non-nuclear state would give Russia, North Korea and others a precedent, which Carlson himself warns of. It would make every future crisis more dangerous, including ours.

The alternative exists

Trump has said Iran wants an agreement and one could happen. Vice President Vance and envoy Witkoff are reportedly urging a deal. Muslim-majority states, especially Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Oman, have credibility with Tehran and a direct interest in keeping talks alive. This is the moment for them to use it.

Iran remains a formidable adversary with missiles, proxies and leverage over the Strait of Hormuz. None of that requires the first use of nuclear weapons in 81 years. As Washington weighs its options after the vote, the case for restraint should be made now, by the governments with the most to lose.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.